Abstract:Background Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, inflammatory, degenerative disease of the central nervous system. One of the most common and disabling symptoms is fatigue. More than 80% of people with MS experience fatigue, which has a negative impact on their quality of life and level of independence in daily activities. The multidimensional nature of fatigue makes it essential to understand its impact from the patient's perspective. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), defined by the FDA as "any report of a patient's health status that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient's response by the physician or other health care professional," were created to address this need. Objectives To identify and describe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that measure the level of fatigue specific to patients with multiple sclerosis.To evaluate and analyze the quality of psychometric properties, methodological quality, and risk of bias of patient-reported outcomes that measure the level of fatigue specific to patients with multiple sclerosis. Methods A systematic psychometric review was conducted and framed according to the standards of the Consensus for the Selection of Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) (Mokkink et al., 2010). Results A total of 34 studies were included, from which a total of 40 references were extracted, as some studies reported two or more PROMs simultaneously. The evaluation and analysis of the risk of bias shows that the studies present a heterogeneous classification depending on the psychometric property evaluated, i.e. while the frequency of studies classified with low risk of bias is higher in measurement properties such as; structural validity; 25 studies (64.10%), internal consistency 25 studies (64.10%), criterion validity: 29 studies (74.36%). There is also a high frequency of studies rated as high or unclear risk of bias, mainly in psychometric properties such as reliability 19 studies (48.71%), cross-cultural validity measurement invariance 13 studies (33.33%). Conclusions PRO instruments are the best way to know the patients' perception of their symptomatology in this case of fatigue, which will undoubtedly contribute to a better approach and better intervention strategies in a personalized way, another component in the improvement of the quality of care and in line with the new paradigm of patient-centered care, which requires an assessment of fatigue by means of a PRO instrument. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to consider the current standards in the development of these instruments for a correct use and interpretability of their results.

Minimal Clinically Important Differences for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Fatigue in Patients With COPD Following Pulmonary Rehabilitation

Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Quadriceps Muscle Strength in People with COPD following Pulmonary Rehabilitation

Minimal important differences for fatigue patient reported outcome measures—a systematic review

Health status measurement in COPD: the minimal clinically important difference of the clinical COPD questionnaire

Clinically relevant differences in COPD health status: systematic review and triangulation

Convergent Validity and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Maugeri Foundation Respiratory Failure Questionnaire (MRF-28) and the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease-Specific Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire (VQ11)

The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) scale in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: psychometric properties and clinically meaningful thresholds for interpretation

The minimal clinically important difference of two multifaceted fatigue evaluation questionnaires in chronic stroke

S1383 Psychometric Evaluation of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) in Adults With Moderate to Severe Crohn's Disease

Psychometric evaluation of the Functional Assessment of chronic illness therapy–fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) in adults with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease

PROMIS and FAAM Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Foot and Ankle Orthopedics

Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of the COPD Assessment Test in fibrotic interstitial lung disease

Determination of thresholds for minimally important difference and clinically important response on the functional outcomes of sleep questionnaire short version in adults with narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea

Meaningful Change Thresholds and Fatigue Severity Points on Patient reported Outcomes by the Fatigue Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (FSIQ-RMS) in Patients with Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis

Psychometric Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, measuring Fatigue in patients with Multiple Sclerosis, a Systematic Review

Minimal important difference for London Chest Activity of Daily Living scale in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Relationship between perceived and neuromuscular fatigue in COPD patients with chronic respiratory failure with long-term oxygen therapy: a cross-sectional study

Minimal clinically important differenceof fatigue severity scale in patients with chronic stroke

Clinical Relevance of Inter-Method Differences in Fat-Free Mass Estimation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Development of the PROMIS-based Research Assessment and Clinical Tool-Fatigue (ReACT-F)

Optimising PR for COPD: Does Severity Matter?